ArturoBandini wrote:Sad, but true. If we weren't destroying people's lives in other countries, what would happen to those thousands of jobs in OshKosh?

The "K" isn't capitalized unless you're dressing a child.

Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation warned that if military contractors who have a financial interest in war gained a foothold in Washington politics, America would become mired in an era of perpetual war. And who would have known better than Ike?

I wonder what it would take to reverse 70 years of war profiteering? Imagine if all of those engineers and pots of gold were working to build a better car rather than a better bomb? Shit, my car might run on the power of happy thoughts by now.

You're right, Arturo, the military should be no larger than necessary to defend ourselves, but how do you scale back the power of monied interests? Doesn't "Citizens United" essentially solidify the power of corporations within our government? Are we watching a not-so-slow descent into fascism? How does a libertarian combat such corruption? Get a bigger yard sign and pray for smarter voters?

snoqueen wrote:Let's start with the easy ones. First, can anyone tell me why we are (still) in Afghanistan?

The Taliban was to impatient to wait till Obama pulled troops out?

snoqueen wrote:Today whoever has the most money and most sophisticated technology gets to use it against whomever they please. I think in the future that will be considered contrary to morality, to international law, to human rights, or whatever convention of authority is appealed to when that day arrives.

I have a hard time imagining a future where China the US or other leading powers would be signatories to a treaty that neuters their military advantage. Absent that support, I don't see such a treating taking hold.

What's more, I think it's actually a good thing such disparity exists. WWI and WWII were fought by armies that were fairly close in technological means, as was the American Civil War. None of those wars were particularly low on the death toll, or kind to civilians. It be nice to imagine we've evolved at all from that stage, but looking back at just the last 20 years of conflicts in this world puts lie to that myth.

snoqueen wrote:Does the willingness of the supposed enemy to use suicide bombers change the equation? On the terms I've described, suicide bombers are to be met by other suicide bombers. As an alternative the target country uses defensive methods, which are probably more effective anyhow.

Interesting question. I don't think the willingness to use suicide bombers changes the question so much as the willingness to target civilians. Simple morality bars responding to such attacks in kind (either in method or target). Ultimately I'd say the first step in addressing that question is once again treating terrorists and terrorist organizations as criminals rather than combatants.

Snoqueen wrote:If our forces are "not playing checkers" (which we can agree on), is their primary intent then to defend themselves effectively and get home safely? If so, why were they sent into danger in the first place?

The purpose of warfare is to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. In the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's probably fair to say our continued presence has proven to do the exact opposite. Safe, happy people with hope for their future, generally don't volunteer to strap a explosive vest on and blow themselves up. Maybe we need to give up the delusion that we can wipe out government and build up a new one to replace it.

pjbogart wrote:Doesn't "Citizens United" essentially solidify the power of corporations within our government? Are we watching a not-so-slow descent into fascism? How does a libertarian combat such corruption? Get a bigger yard sign and pray for smarter voters?

I'm sure you've heard of the Koch Brothers, right? They happen to be libertarians, against war spending, pro-gay rights, etc. They're also in favor of individual economic freedoms, so maybe that's going too far for some people and they should still be censored.

Just to double check, I googled around a bit because there has been a lot of negative attention paid to the Kochs, as I'm sure you're aware - I assumed that their closet skeletons have surely been outed by now. Maybe they are secret Halliburton shareholders, I dunno.

Anyway, this guy links them to about $98m in government contracts, with the majority going to DOD contracts. Well, it turns out that $95.5m of those contracts are for Georgia Pacific, i.e. paper. This is still government contracting, I suppose, but hardly war profiteering in an ethical sense. Army gonna use a lotta paper, I guess.

ArturoBandini wrote:Anyway, this guy links them to about $98m in government contracts, with the majority going to DOD contracts. Well, it turns out that $95.5m of those contracts are for Georgia Pacific, i.e. paper. This is still government contracting, I suppose, but hardly war profiteering in an ethical sense. Army gonna use a lotta paper, I guess.

Francis Di Domizio wrote:and the remaining $2.5 million is for a really big straw

$2.5 million is a rounding error in defense dept budgets. Kochs spent tens of millions in the last election. It would be somewhat silly to spend that kind of dough to get $2.5m of war-profiteering contracts. Also, those contracts go back to 2000 (the year). The point is that the Kochs are not war profiteers, at least not in the sense that we commonly think of war profiteering. They don't sell the army armaments, they sell them TP.

I'm no fan of Libertarian extremist Rand Paul. But I'm glad he raised the drone issue. Pretty soon, the way things are headed, these unmanned vehicles/weapons will be hovering above your house, and mine. Oh wait, they probably are already. If Homeland Security had deployed drones, say a a year or two ago, the level of secrecy that department practices would in all likelihood prevent us from finding out about it until several years later. If ever.

Crockett wrote:Its funny that people here think that Rand did this 'stunt' for the GOP. Today the 'people-who-love-to-bomb-people' part of the GOP (Graham & McCain) came out and tried to destroy Rand.

Not exactly a 'coordinated' GOP attack on Obama...

I read that this morning. I think its hilarious that McCain is criticizing Paul for holding up the nomination - "his fears are unfounded". This is the same McCain who held up the Hagel nomination because Hagel said bad things about Bush.

Crockett wrote:I'm honestly disappointed that more 'progressive, peace-loving' dems did not come out to support him. I expect bombs and destruction of civil liberties from the GOP by now. I had hoped the Democrats would fight, but alas, I was wrong.

Border security, including drones, satellite and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and would be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the Government Accountability Office.

Crockett wrote:I had hoped the Democrats would fight, but alas, I was wrong.

No fight was needed as it wasn't a real issue; your civil rights have never been under threat in any way related to drones. The very idea that the US might assassinate it's own non-combative citizens at home is nothing but disconnected-from-reality right-wing conjecture.